This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

Max Wingerd, MD; Victor M. Bernhard, MD; Frank Maddison, MD; Jonathan B. Towne, MD

Arch Surg. 1978;113(11):1264-1271.

Abstract
• Over a seven-year period, 38 Mobin-Uddin MU and 33 Kim-Ray Greenfield KG vena cava filters were inserted in 71 patients with no substantial complications or deaths directly related to the surgical procedure. Thirteen of the 16 early deaths were due to progression of associated diseases. The remaining three deaths were caused by pulmonary emboli and occurred in each instance after insertion of a MU filter. None of the 14 late deaths were related to the caval filter or sequellae of venous thrombosis. Inferior vena cava patency was objectively assessed in 36 patients by cavagram (22) or autopsy (14). Caval patency of 95% (18 of 19) in those with KG filters was significantly greater than the 47% patency (eight of 17) seen with MU devices (P <.01). Gray scale ultrasound, when successful in visualizing the vena cava, was found to be a reliable indicator of patency. Venous stasis phenomena were noted in 50% of those with a patent cava and in 70% of those with an occlusion. Thus, it is not surprising that edema was found in only 38% of the patients as compared with 75% of the patients with the MU filter.

Both of these devices are safe to insert. However, on the basis of superior patency rate, lower incidence of stasis phenomena, and the absence of recurrent pulmonary emboli in our series, we prefer insertion of a KG filter when caval interruption is required.

(Arch Surg 113:1264-1271, 1978)

Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Surgery (Drs Wingerd, Bernhard, and Towne) and Radiology (Dr Maddison), the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication July 24, 1978.

Read before the 26th scientific meeting of the International Cardiovascular Society, Los Angeles, June 23, 1978.

Reprint requests to the Medical College of Wisconsin, Department of Surgery, 8700 W Wisconsin Ave, Milwaukee, WI 53226 (Dr Bernhard).

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Vena Caval Filters: A Review for Intensive Care Specialists
Streiff
J Intensive Care Med 2003;18:59-79.
ABSTRACT  

Five-Year Follow-up of Prophylactic Vena Cava Filters in High-Risk Trauma Patients
Rogers et al.
Arch Surg 1998;133:406-412.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Management of Deep Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism : A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Council on Thrombosis (in Consultation With the Council on Cardiovascular Radiology), American Heart Association
Hirsh and Hoak
Circulation 1996;93:2212-2245.
FULL TEXT  

Inferior Vena Caval Filter Placement Without Preoperative Venacavography
Mirande et al.
VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 1995;29:469-475.
ABSTRACT  

The Role of Intracaval Filters in Patients with COPD and DVT
Pomper and Lutchman
ANGIOLOGY 1991;42:85-89.
ABSTRACT  

Preliminary Clinical Experience With the Titanium Greenfield Vena Caval Filter
Greenfield et al.
Arch Surg 1989;124:657-659.
ABSTRACT  

Recurrent Pulmonary Embolism from Thrombi in Greenfield Filter Case Report
Schanzer and Knight
VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 1988;22:110-113.
ABSTRACT  

Effect of a 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Field on Greenfield Filters in Vitro and in Dogs
Williamson et al.
ANGIOLOGY 1988;39:1022-1024.
ABSTRACT  

Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation and the Mobin-Uddin Vena Cava Umbrella Filter in a Patient with a Hypercoagulable State
Mizock and Shah
VASC ENDOVASCULAR SURG 1985;19:122-125.
ABSTRACT  

Greenfield Vena Caval Filter Experience: Late Results in 156 Patients
Greenfield et al.
Arch Surg 1981;116:1451-1456.
ABSTRACT  

Requirements for a Method of Transvenous Inferior Vena Cava Interruption
Hunter et al.
Arch Surg 1980;115:1324-1330.
ABSTRACT  

Clinical Experience With the Mobin-Uddin Vena Cava Umbrella Filter
Menzoian et al.
Arch Surg 1980;115:1179-1181.
ABSTRACT